20 years of data reveals that Congress doesn't care what you think.

For the last few years, I've had this sense that everything I learned as a kid about how America's government works is completely wrong. But I had no idea how bad things actually were until I saw one simple graph.

Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University looked at more than 20 years of data to answer a pretty simple question: Does the government represent the people?
This video gives a quick rundown of their findings and explains what's going on in the simple graph above:

Things start out bleak, but stick with it — it's not all depressing.



If you're the type who prefers reading to watching videos and/or doesn't want to get caught on YouTube at work and/or finds my nerdy narrator voice unbearable (it's been known to happen), read on for a written summary.
Your opinion literally does not matter...

Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.

Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Really think about that for a second.

If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.

But, of course, there's a catch.

...unless you're an "economic elite."

Democrats doubled down Monday on their charge that Republican senators are rushing the confirmation process on President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks without giving them enough time for a thorough vetting.

Nine of Trump’s potential Cabinet members are set for hearings this week as Republicans seek to get the incoming president’s team in line by the time he takes office at the end of next week. Five hearings will be held on Wednesday alone.

The jampacked schedule has roiled Democrats, who argue many of the proposed nominees deserve extra scrutiny because of their vast wealth and inexperience in public office.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3134 ... firmations

House GOP rules change will make it easier to sell off federal land

House Republicans on Tuesday changed the way Congress calculates the cost of transferring federal lands to the states and other entities, a move that will make it easier for members of the new Congress to cede federal control of public lands.

The provision, included as part as a larger rules package the House approved by a vote of 233 to 190 during its first day in session, highlights the extent to which some congressional Republicans hope to change longstanding rules now that the GOP will control the executive and the legislative branches starting Jan. 20.

Many Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), have been pushing to hand over large areas of federal land to state and local authorities, on the grounds that they will be more responsive to the concerns of local residents.

House Natural Resources Committee spokeswoman Molly Block said in a statement that “in many cases federal lands create a significant burden for the surrounding communities,” because they cannot be taxed and can be “in disrepair.”

“Allowing communities to actually manage and use these lands will generate not only state and local income tax, but also federal income tax revenues” she added, as well as reduce the need for some federally-supported payments. “Unfortunately, current budget practices do not fully recognize these benefits, making it very difficult for non-controversial land transfers between governmental entities for public use and other reasons to happen.”

But many Democrats argue that these lands should be managed on behalf of all Americans, not just those living nearby, and warn that cash-strapped state and local officials might sell these parcels to developers.

Counter-Sting Catches James O’Keefe Network Attempting To Sow Chaos At Trump’s Inauguration

WASHINGTON ― A left-wing political group released a new video Monday of a counter-sting that has uncovered evidence of right-wing activists trying to sow chaos at Donald Trump’s inaugural ceremony, an effort to portray critics of Trump who march against him as violent fringe figures.

The counter-sting, carried out by The Undercurrent and Americans Take Action, a project of a previous target of provocateur James O’Keefe, managed to surreptitiously record elements of O’Keefe’s network offering huge sums of money to progressive activists if they would disrupt the ceremony and “put a stop to the inauguration” and the related proceedings to such a degree that donors to the clandestine effort would “turn on a TV and maybe not even see Trump.” To have riots blot out coverage of Trump, the donor offered “unlimited resources,” including to shut down bridges into D.C.

The Undercurrent, led by executive producer Lauren Windsor, is sponsored by American Family Voices, which was among a constellation of groups infiltrated by O’Keefe’s Project Veritas during the presidential campaign, an effort to link Democrats with voter fraud.

Windsor told HuffPost that for now, the group is only releasing an edited version of the video. One of the conservative operatives recorded on it by The Undercurrent was Allison Maass, who previously was caught attempting to infiltrate the Senate campaign of Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, as well as the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Maass was also a lead infiltrator during the voter fraud campaign.

Windsor, in investigating Project Veritas, discovered the name of a front group, Breakthrough Dev Group, that O’Keefe was using to set up stings. Somebody from BDG contacted an allied group, which reached out to activist Ryan Clayton. Windsor arranged to have the meeting secretly recorded. (It’s likely Maass was recording as well. It is plausible that O’Keefe’s plan was not to disrupt to inaugural, but instead to catch lefties offering to do so.)

“It was my pleasure to work with the highly skilled operatives who pulled off this reverse sting of political conman James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas cohorts,” Clayton told HuffPost.

Sanders Fans Furious With Dems Who Voted Against His Amendment

Thirteen Democrats voted against a Bernie Sanders-sponsored amendment that could have allowed cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada

On Wednesday night, amid Senate votes for a bill that brought us one step closer to repealing the Affordable Care Act, a bipartisan group voted against an amendment to that bill proposed by Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar that could have paved the way for cheaper drugs to be imported from Canada. While a surprising number of Republicans (12) voted for the amendment, 13 Democrats voted against it. The amendment was rejected by a 46-52 vote.

Sanders supporters, among others, are very upset with the Democrats who did not vote Sanders’ way — especially Cory Booker, who some hoped will be their future president. In subreddits devoted to Sanders and progressive causes, there are multiple threads castigating the Democrats who voted against the amendment, especially as, with the number of Republicans who voted for it, they believe it would have passed. (This is not true; amendments to bills need 60 votes. Even with all Democrats voting for it, it still would only have received 59 unless Dianne Feinstein dragged herself out of post-pacemaker-surgery bed rest to vote for it.)

A popular thread on the Political Revolution subreddit is calling for the 13 Democrats to be primaried, singling out for special mention “that weasel Cory Booker” and his “treachery.” This message was also posted on the Sanders for President subreddit. Both subreddits include several other threads about the vote, framing it as Democrats bowing to pressure from pharmaceutical companies who want to continue a monopoly on that allows them to charge Americans much more for the same drug that other countries, including Canada, do. With competition from Canada, American companies would be forced to lower their prices to compete.

So, why would Democrats vote against an amendment that could lower drug prices? Are they in the pocket of Big Pharma, as some suggest?

http://www.vocativ.com/392631/sanders-c ... nt-booker/

North Dakota Bill Would Protect Drivers Who ‘Accidentally’ Hit And Kill Protesters
It’s aimed at Dakota Access protesters, and it doesn’t bode well.

Republican lawmakers in North Dakota are taking aim at protesters with a handful of bills that would make another pipeline protest far more dangerous.

The oil-friendly legislature argues that its constituents are frustrated over the protests, which led federal authorities to halt construction of the $3.8-billion Dakota Access Pipeline as thousands of protesters braved cold weather and violence for months.

A bill that state GOP Rep. Keith Kempenich introduced would exempt drivers from liability if they accidentally hit a pedestrian, according to the Bismarck Tribune. House Bill 1203 was written up in direct response to groups of protesters blocking roadways, Kempenich told the paper. He claims protesters were seen jumping out in front of vehicles.

“It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Kempenich said. “They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger.”

He admits that the law might be used in cases that don’t involve protests. But a few casualties of justice are apparently worth it; his bill would mitigate instances when panicked drivers might have accidentally “punched the accelerator rather than the brakes” as protesters blocked the roads.

Other new bills would be a thorn in the side of protesters and the federal government. One measure would make it a crime for adults to wear masks nearly across the board, while another would allow the state to sue the federal government over millions in extra police costs, according to ABC News.

At this point, it’s unclear whether any of these measures stand a chance, and there’s no committee hearing set for HB1203. It might be crazy to think they’re anything more than posturing, dissenters say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bil ... D=ref_fark

crank wrote:Taking corporate dick while bending the american people over and shoving it up their asses. Quite a 3-way going there, those pols are more limber than they look. When you have a forum of skeptics like this is supposed to be, and have the large percentage who refuse to acknowledge this reality, it makes it all the less likely joe public will trip to it either. This couldn't go on without the media playing a significant role, I don't see how that could be denied, though I've seen many try, a few just recently, here at ratskep.

There are numerous little things that make the case in and of themselves. One of the most common is how it's the norm to use the DowJones average as indicative of how the economy is doing. But the most significant way the media aids the pols in pushing the corporate agenda is what they don't cover, the question that don't get asked. Usually, if they are covering issues that expose how corrupt the system is, it's treated like some kind of aberration, and it's usually a one-time story, with no follow up, no long-term focus, they'll completely forget everything the next time they're having a sit-down with some pol, or the president even, they virtually never seriously hold anyone's feet to the fire, and it won't be persistent or consistent.

93 views and this is your first reply? Not surprising.

Calilasseia wrote:Part of the problem, is that these actions are being deliberately undertaken on an industrial scale, in an effort to overwhelm critics with fatigue at having so many targets to aim at. The modus operandi is actually a stroke of genius in its simplicity - instead of exercising a lot of effort trying to sneak a small number of corrupt or malign measures under the radar, and risk having to go into damage limitation mode when caught, brazenly drive an entire tank battalion of corrupt and malign measures through in rapid succession, so that the opposition are left with no time to prepare a counter-offensive. Political Blitzkrieg, basically.

Trump team reportedly wants to strip FCC of consumer protection powers
Plan is a "declaration of war" on consumers and competition, opponent says.

President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is reportedly pushing a proposal to strip the Federal Communications Commission of its role in overseeing competition and consumer protection.

Multichannel News has what it calls an exclusive report that says the incoming Trump administration has "signed off on an approach to remaking the Federal Communications Commission." The plan, offered by transition team members appointed by Trump, "squares with the deregulatory philosophies of FCC Republicans Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly," who will take a 2-1 majority after Trump's inauguration on Friday, the report said.

Besides restructuring FCC bureaus, the majority of the transition team wants to "eventually move functions deemed 'duplicative,' like, say, competition and consumer protection, to other agencies, particularly the Federal Trade Commission," Multichannel news reported. The story cites "sources familiar" with a recent meeting involving Trump officials and FCC transition team members. The Trump team has not made any on-the-record statements about specific plans for the FCC.

Pai and O'Rielly have already promised to take a deregulatory approach to broadband and telecom industries, and it's within their power to do so. But that doesn't mean the Trump administration could unilaterally reduce the FCC's authority in such a way that the changes last beyond Trump's presidency. Congress would have to be involved in a permanent reduction of FCC authority, though that isn't inconceivable as Congressional Republicans have previously said they'd like to overhaul the Communications Act that gives the FCC its authority.

The FCC transition team appointed by Trump has six people including three individuals affiliated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), namely Roslyn Layton, Jeffrey Eisenach, and Mark Jamison. The majority plan offered by the transition team "was said to dovetail with comments from Eisenach and Layton to Congress in 2014," which said FCC "functions are largely duplicative of those of other agencies," Multichannel News reported.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017 ... on-powers/

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Education Pick, Seems Unfamiliar With A Major Federal Education Law

Donald Trump’s nominee for education secretary appeared stumped by senators when they asked her about a federal education law related to discrimination during her confirmation hearing Tuesday night.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) asked Betsy DeVos about how she’d enforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA, as the law is known, requires that public schools provide children with disabilities a “free and appropriate” education just like other students.

As DeVos danced around his questions, Kaine grew agitated, asking her point-blank if schools should have to follow federal law.

“Should all K-12 schools receiving government funding be required to meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act?” he asked.

“I think they already are,” DeVos responded, suggesting that no school is failing to meet the law.

“But I’m asking you a ‘should’ question,” Kaine followed up. “Should all schools that receive taxpayer funding be required to meet [the law]?”

“I think that’s a matter that’s best left to the states,” DeVos responded, essentially saying the federal government should abdicate enforcement of its own law.

Kaine pretty much lost it at that point.

“So some states might be good to kids with disabilities, other states might not be good, and then what? People can just move around the country if they don’t like [the schools]?”

When it was her turn to quiz DeVos, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who has a son with special needs, returned to the topic of IDEA, and wanted to pin down whether DeVos was even familiar with it.

“That’s a federal civil rights law,” Hassan said. “So do you stand by your statement a few minutes ago that it should be up to the state whether to follow it?”

“I may have confused it,” DeVos responded.

DeVos is a controversial pick to run the Department of Education. A billionaire from one of Michigan’s wealthiest families, DeVos has never been a teacher or worked as a school administrator, and her children did not attend public school. Her education experience is primarily as a political donor, steering money toward “school choice” reforms to bolster charter and private schools.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bet ... 47f0bc01ea

Willie71 wrote:I watched several of the DeVoss interviews last night. It was fucking embarrassing.

Teague wrote:Oh and let's point out that Sanders lost the electio na dis still fighting for people. Clinton on the other hand....

Corneel wrote:

Teague wrote:Oh and let's point out that Sanders lost the electio na dis still fighting for people. Clinton on the other hand....

Let's point out that Sanders is, despite his loss in the primaries, still a US Senator for the state of Vermont, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise he's involved in the hearings of Trump nominees in the senate (ie he's doing the job he's been elected for). Clinton on the other hand has at the moment no elective mandate that would allow her to do what Sanders is doing.